Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Why do monks need to be as good at fighting as other melee classes?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 150 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:


RP won't keep you alive*, and while the dice gods can always end your character, it is always better to play with the odds than against them which is what the monk does.

*Well it can, but that is mostly GM Fiat, which can't be counted on in a discussion on the boards.

Awww, you mean I can't write a 12 page backstory about my character's royal lineage and how my character is the current leader and patriarch of *insert really important, wealthy, and powerful noble family here* who doesn't actually adventure and stuff but instead has a group of 12th level characters on retainer for dealing with stuff? Aww, you dirty GM, you be crampin' my roleplay swagger, yo!

Disclaimer: If anyone reads this post as anything except obvious joking, please place this oddly colored fist-sized candy in your mouth, pull pin, and count to ten. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Silver Crusade

A locked gauntlet will add a +10 to the CMD vs Disarm attempts so the Monk won't be disarming the fighter very easily.

As far as TWF goes, two longswords are cool to imagine but not practical in actual character building. When playing a TWF fighter I almost always spend my extra feat on exotic weapon prof (Wakizashi) so I can have a 18-19 x 2 and then eventually get Improved Critical to make that crit range even better, then I make sure I get the "Agile" property and work from there.

If I am not mistaken, I believe I saw an Unarmed Fighter build that would out fight a Monk.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


RP won't keep you alive*, and while the dice gods can always end your character, it is always better to play with the odds than against them which is what the monk does.

*Well it can, but that is mostly GM Fiat, which can't be counted on in a discussion on the boards.

Awww, you mean I can't write a 12 page backstory about my character's royal lineage and how my character is the current leader and patriarch of *insert really important, wealthy, and powerful noble family here* who doesn't actually adventure and stuff but instead has a group of 12th level characters on retainer for dealing with stuff? Aww, you dirty GM, you be crampin' my roleplay swagger, yo!

Disclaimer: If anyone reads this post as anything except obvious joking, please place this oddly colored fist-sized candy in your mouth, pull pin, and count to ten. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Some people believe that "plot armor" is supposed to protect so the story can stay in line.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've honestly never seen a locked gauntlet used in a game. But then, I rarely see disarm attempts either.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Add to that best saves, immunities, etc...

Yes, almost as good as a paladin, the fully armoured full BAB class that casts spells and heals and can smite evil. Compare...well, anything between the two classes, and the paladin comes out on top for it all save skills (the monk has a slight edge) and mobility (if you discount the paladin's mount). It's even less MAD than the monk.

Any argument about the monks great defensive ability offsetting their lack of offence, and you have to bring out the paladin, and there's nothing left to argue that the monk didn't get hosed in comparison.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've honestly never seen a locked gauntlet used in a game. But then, I rarely see disarm attempts either.

I've had people look at me funny for telling them to mark off those arrows they just fired.

Silver Crusade

I would actually give the Monk more credit if it actually had some good skill usage but it doesn't even have that.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Did you tell them how much equipment tracking your campaign included beforehand?


shallowsoul wrote:

A locked gauntlet will add a +10 to the CMD vs Disarm attempts so the Monk won't be disarming the fighter very easily.

As far as TWF goes, two longswords are cool to imagine but not practical in actual character building. When playing a TWF fighter I almost always spend my extra feat on exotic weapon prof (Wakizashi) so I can have a 18-19 x 2 and then eventually get Improved Critical to make that crit range even better, then I make sure I get the "Agile" property and work from there.

If I am not mistaken, I believe I saw an Unarmed Fighter build that would out fight a Monk.

Kukris also do 18-20, and an unarmed fight would out damage the monk, and as the levels get higher the divide gets bigger.

That build might have been one of mine. :)

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did you tell them how much equipment tracking your campaign included beforehand?

I don't have too, that's the default of the game.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did you tell them how much equipment tracking your campaign included beforehand?
I don't have too, that's the default of the game.

So you purposefully allowed players into your game with incorrect assumptions about it?

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did you tell them how much equipment tracking your campaign included beforehand?
I don't have too, that's the default of the game.
So you purposefully allowed players into your game with incorrect assumptions about it?

Tracking ammunition is the same as any other rule in the book. Do you have to remind players that they have to track their HP?

I have seen many many many players decide for themselves that tracking ammo falls low on the totem pole of rules so they think it's okay to ignore but what they fail to understand is the fact that all rules are created equal. Tracking ammo is on the exact same level as tracking HP so unless I tell you that I am "not" tracking ammo then you mark it off your sheet if you hit or you roll the percentile if you miss to see if you lose your ammo.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And if the player has never played in a game where ammo is tracked?


If the player is new to the group then I tell them since many people assume their old group's way is the right way. I know people should not assume, but in RPG's you only know what you are taught.

I would have allowed the player to retro the buying of arrows in that case, since it is a communication issue.

I don't track rations as an example, but I have had players tell me of GM's that track everything, even water.

That is too much for me personally.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did you tell them how much equipment tracking your campaign included beforehand?
I don't have too, that's the default of the game.

Seconded.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if the player has never played in a game where ammo is tracked?

Not my problem. Tracking ammo is a part of the rules and is treated no differently than any other rule of the game.

I shouldn't have to go out of my way and ask if ammo was tracked in their game. If I say I am about to run a Pathfinder game and I leave it at that then I have the luxury to assume that the player's are going to be tracking their ammo. Player's don't have the luxury to assume that I am not playing by the rules and therefore think I am not making then track ammo

Unless I specifically tell you I am playing a homebrew and I point out what I am houseruling then it is your job as a player to assume we are playing by the default.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And this is why I ask plenty of questions of my new DMs, because plenty of them have communications issues.

Andoran

@Ashiel

But you continue to forget that the bonus is at no cost in gold or in armor check penalty, and stacks with every other possible enhancement.

When at 8th level monk has a natural +2 bonus, in addition to whatever they have from armor.

So lets assume it is an 18 wisdom, very reasonable at 8th level for a monk. That means they start with a +6 to armor before adding on anything, and everything stacks.

And they could take dodge as a bonus feat to make that +7.

As you said, the bracers are no good to anyone wearing armor, but monks don't wear armor and cost the same as an armor enhancement.

@ Dabbler

Let us say, for the purposes of the argument, that the monk is 2nd to the Paladin. That makes them better than all classes but the Paladin, which is pretty sweet.

I agree the attack and damage gap needs to be crossed, preferably by providing a way for monks to enhance attacks. But if that is added they are functionally full BaB for TWF without any feat expenditure (and can surpass with a ki expenditure), 2nd to the fighter in feats, immune to poison and disease, has all high saves and is highly mobile.

I don't see that being a non-competitive class. In fact, in my experience, the monk becomes one of the best mage killers in the late game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Let us say, for the purposes of the argument, that the monk is 2nd to the Paladin. That makes them better than all classes but the Paladin, which is pretty sweet.

If they were, it would be. They aren't 2nd to the paladin. If you rank the combat classes (including the rogue), monks come about 6th out of those in the CRB.

ciretose wrote:
I agree the attack and damage gap needs to be crossed, preferably by providing a way for monks to enhance attacks. But if that is added they are functionally full BaB for TWF without any feat expenditure (and can surpass with a ki expenditure), 2nd to the fighter in feats, immune to poison and disease, has all high saves and is highly mobile.

Yes, and my point is that that would still not make them as good as the paladin. I am not aiming for them to be as good as the paladin, though - with their various abilities, being able to hit and damage as well as a paladin not smiting would make me happy.

ciretose wrote:
I don't see that being a non-competitive class. In fact, in my experience, the monk becomes one of the best mage killers in the late game.

That's not really saying much though, any combat class that can close with a mage can beat them up because mages cannot fight. The monk has a slightly better chance of getting close to them, but the rogue or the paladin could do as well.

Cheliax

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's really sad is that all spell casting classes have armor now. Check Ultimate Combat. Check light armor. Check silk robe. No armor check penalty or arcane failure chance.

But a monk can't use it. Because it's armor. And they can't wear armor.

Wizards and sorcerers can wear armor and a monk cannot.

Monks suck.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Add to that best saves, immunities, etc...

Yes, almost as good as a paladin, the fully armoured full BAB class that casts spells and heals and can smite evil. Compare...well, anything between the two classes, and the paladin comes out on top for it all save skills (the monk has a slight edge) and mobility (if you discount the paladin's mount). It's even less MAD than the monk.

Any argument about the monks great defensive ability offsetting their lack of offence, and you have to bring out the paladin, and there's nothing left to argue that the monk didn't get hosed in comparison.

This is the kind of thing I mean about different valuations of the non- mechanical features. A paladin may be strictly better than a monk as a defensive character (I don't know) but if the powers-that-be consider the paladin code to be a terrible imposition they may still consider it "balanced".

Hopefully it's clear I'm not actually arguing, but I think "there's nothing left to argue" is a brave call when there are subjective elements involved.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

This is the kind of thing I mean about different valuations of the non- mechanical features. A paladin may be strictly better than a monk as a defensive character (I don't know) but if the powers-that-be consider the paladin code to be a terrible imposition they may still consider it "balanced".

Hopefully it's clear I'm not actually arguing, but I think "there's nothing left to argue" is a brave call when there are subjective elements involved.

And that is fair comment, but we don't really want to be as tough as the paladin in any event, while the monk has his own alignment requirement if not a code, and is more MAD. I think those factors balance, myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

@Ashiel

But you continue to forget that the bonus is at no cost in gold or in armor check penalty, and stacks with every other possible enhancement.

When at 8th level monk has a natural +2 bonus, in addition to whatever they have from armor.

So lets assume it is an 18 wisdom, very reasonable at 8th level for a monk. That means they start with a +6 to armor before adding on anything, and everything stacks.

And they could take dodge as a bonus feat to make that +7.

As you said, the bracers are no good to anyone wearing armor, but monks don't wear armor and cost the same as an armor enhancement.

I meant that to keep their AC relative that they had to invest in other venues where there are cheaper alternatives. I gave an example as to how a monk pumping ability scores could match a ranger in mundane chainmail, but the ranger could spend 1/2 that amount to wear +2 chainmail and pull ahead easily. Again, with no real effort and more or less regardless of ability scores (a resource that can be difficult to manage).

A monk begins to really shine late, late in the game, but only in terms of armor class. That's when the monk has enough gold to squeeze every stacking bonus they can get their hands on to hit ACs between 52-60, which includes pimping Wisdom prime, Dex secondary, natural, deflection, dodge, shield (ring), armor (bracers), and so forth.

Thing is, and this is my biggest problem with the 2 handed fighter as well...you have to actually GET to that level. I'm sorry, but having AC 15-16 at 6th level is not going to cut it for a melee character. 2 handed fighters can 1-shot the damndest things at 20th level by critically hitting a foe with a single strike for hundreds of damage on demand, but they can't do it 'till 19th-20th level. Same with monks. With tons of cash, they can push themselves beyond the norm, but really, what else do you have at that point? Not much.

Which is my point. Sure, monks can get crazy good ACs at high levels, with high stats, and lots of magic items, and can get them about 40 to even 60% higher on the d20 scale than other classes can, but all of that is essentially for naught, but nobody gives a poop because most people don't want to keep having their character raised over and over and over, before that. Boy, if the cost of raises on the way to that level was taken out of the monk's WBL, it'd be a wonder if he could even afford any of those things by the time he would qualify for them.

You got a guy who sucks at melee, sucks at tanking, isn't very good at skills, etc, etc, etc. Your ranged capabilities basically amount to chucking shuriken at disgustingly huge penalties to hit (oh, we can throw them up to 50 ft with a -10 penalty, whee!), which puts you in melee range anyway. For most levels, you are either drinking gold every hour on the hour during an adventure (mage armor it does a body good), or you're getting slaughtered because your AC is worse than most NPC warriors; and so forth.

I have very little faith in monks. Too many mechanical problems. I've had to scrape too many of them off the road after CR appropriate encounters ran them over like so much roadkill.

Andoran

Dabbler wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Let us say, for the purposes of the argument, that the monk is 2nd to the Paladin. That makes them better than all classes but the Paladin, which is pretty sweet.

If they were, it would be. They aren't 2nd to the paladin. If you rank the combat classes (including the rogue), monks come about 6th out of those in the CRB.

This is completely ridiculous.

Silver Crusade

The Monk has some neat but situational abilities. "Tongue in cheek" is great and all but it should be an ability that the Monk may choose from a list of others. If you want to make a Monk who is less on combat and better in social situations then there should be a build that allows you to do this. Sure you can build a social Monk now but you have all these combat abilities that would just sit there and be even worse than they already are.

I could see a "combat monk" build, a diplomatic Monk build, a healer monk build, and a stealthy monk build if the monk was actually done right.

Right now the Monk is butter scraped over way too much bread.

Andoran

BYC wrote:

What's really sad is that all spell casting classes have armor now. Check Ultimate Combat. Check light armor. Check silk robe. No armor check penalty or arcane failure chance.

But a monk can't use it. Because it's armor. And they can't wear armor.

Wizards and sorcerers can wear armor and a monk cannot.

Monks suck.

Because that +1 to armor is better than the bonus from Wisdom?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.


ciretose wrote:
BYC wrote:

What's really sad is that all spell casting classes have armor now. Check Ultimate Combat. Check light armor. Check silk robe. No armor check penalty or arcane failure chance.

But a monk can't use it. Because it's armor. And they can't wear armor.

Wizards and sorcerers can wear armor and a monk cannot.

Monks suck.

Because that +1 to armor is better than the bonus from Wisdom?

Actually, yeah. Wizard can hit +12 AC from armor/shield, complete with sexy benefits like Fortification (woo 75% chance to dodge crit/SA) and have cute benefits like arrow deflection to boot. Incidentally, the +12 AC from +5 armor/+5 mithral buckler is cheaper than +8 bracers of armor, and they can craft them themselves if desired for 1/2 price.

Does the monk have a higher potential? Yeah, sure. But it requires tons of cash and higher levels, and magic items you cannot reliably purchase and create, etc. The wizard doesn't have to struggle with ability scores, and agonize over the fact going from a 14 Wisdom to a 16 Wisdom costs like 4 more points. It's a mighty fine advantage when you don't have goo-gobs of ability score points to throw around; which is a larger issue when you're a monk and basically need every ability score except Charisma. :P

To get +1 to AC from Wisdom, the Monk needs 4,000 gp, then 16,000 gp, then 32,000 gp. To get +1 to AC from Dexterity, the monk needs the same. Incidentally, the Wizard can still net +12 AC from armor/shield, then bank Dex for another nice boost. Match the monk with a high Dex, high Wisdom, high level, and +8 armor bonus? No, not really; but that actually is theoretical. Like, in theory, the monk will be fine being a melee character with a sub-balls AC for most of his career and then get better; whereas the Wizard is more believable. His AC bonuses aren't bad for someone whose idea of melee combat is not participating. :P


Steve Geddes wrote:
Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.

Defensive characters without teeth are called wallflowers. They're pretty to look at, but then people just walk around you. :P

EDIT: That being said, feel free to link me. If that monk actually has teeth, then I must give the guy a pat on the back. Then again, archtypes and all just mean one variation of monk doesn't suck. I actually said that before. Zen Archers (before Paizo lost their minds) were good "monks", and Qi Gong monks (aka spellcasters) aren't bad. :)


I think a simple house rule might help. That rule being that the monk gets +1 to the attribute of his choice each level (and they don't all have to be in the same attribute, he can choose at each level).
So, by the time he gets to 20th level, he could have +10 to dex and wis - which has huge ramifications to just about everything the class does.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Let us say, for the purposes of the argument, that the monk is 2nd to the Paladin. That makes them better than all classes but the Paladin, which is pretty sweet.

If they were, it would be. They aren't 2nd to the paladin. If you rank the combat classes (including the rogue), monks come about 6th out of those in the CRB.

This is completely ridiculous.

You don't actually think saying things like this will have any effect, do you?

I mean, I say those things all the time, but I don't expect them to do anything but pad my postcount.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:


I meant that to keep their AC relative that they had to invest in other venues where there are cheaper alternatives.

But my point is that they don't.

The monk with a 16 wisdom at 4th level will have the equivalent of chain mail at no cost, while still getting the full benefit of any enhancement bonuses that may come their way. Only it is also touch AC and has no armor check penalties or max dexterity.

Bracers give them enhancements to armor at the same cost as it would be to actually enhance armor.

What cheaper alternatives are you talking about? The monk can't wear armor, but functionally gets the benefits of armor for free, increasing as the level and working against touch attacks.

At 6th level you don't have a "15-16" AC. You've got 16,000 gold.

Let's assume a 16 Wisdom and 12 Dex, and we are at 15. With one of the three bonus feats I have at that level I take dodge, so I'm at 16.

Bracers of armor +1 are 1000. Ring of Protection is 1000. Amulet of natural armor is 2000.

I've spent 4,000 of my 16,000 WBL to get to 19 regular, 17 touch. If I want to spend another 4k I can raise either my Dex or Wisdom, or add another 3,000 to the ring or the bracers to take them to +2 and I still would only have used half of my WBL. Or I could save money and not get the amulet, instead going Quingong for barkskin at 4th level in exchange for slow fall, which would be a +3 natural at 6th level for 60 minutes a day per ki point spent (I have 6 at this point)

While I'm on Ki points, I can give myself a +4 to AC as a swift action.

So my 6th level monk with 2,000 of the 16,000k WBL in equipment has an 18 AC normally, a 21 AC when he activates barkskin (which lasts for an hour and can be reactivated) and a 25 AC as a swift action as needed.

Kick those all up by 1 if you make the ring +2. And kick it up another one if you invest 2K and an in ability enhancing it for either for Wisdom or Dex. 4k for both, since they are different slots. Hell a belt of physical might is only 5k and could boost strength and Dex.

So if I invest 2K in defenses, one of my three bonus feats, and 7k in ability items, my AC is 20 normally, 23 with barkskin, 27 as a swift action.

And I have 7k left and a +2 bonus to strength as well.

I'm also immune to all diseases, have all good saves, evasion, and I move 50 feet a round if I'm medium.

The issue the monk has comes from the fact that the amulet slot has two masters at this point, as the AOMF and AONA take the same slot. And from the fact that AOMF is not as good as being able to enhance unarmed strikes.

Hell at this level, I can make 4 attack a round for a ki point.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Let us say, for the purposes of the argument, that the monk is 2nd to the Paladin. That makes them better than all classes but the Paladin, which is pretty sweet.

If they were, it would be. They aren't 2nd to the paladin. If you rank the combat classes (including the rogue), monks come about 6th out of those in the CRB.

This is completely ridiculous.

You don't actually think saying things like this will have any effect, do you?

I mean, I say those things all the time, but I don't expect them to do anything but pad my postcount.

Sometimes I don't want to waste the time typing out a response to something that I think is completely asinine, but at the same time I want to make it clear that I think it is painfully wrong so that I don't get accused later of ignoring someone.

Seems like a good compromise.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ah, I had forgotten the risk of ignoring someone. I get that a lot.

Andoran

Gorbacz wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if the player has never played in a game where ammo is tracked?

Not my problem. Tracking ammo is a part of the rules and is treated no differently than any other rule of the game.

I shouldn't have to go out of my way and ask if ammo was tracked in their game. If I say I am about to run a Pathfinder game and I leave it at that then I have the luxury to assume that the player's are going to be tracking their ammo. Player's don't have the luxury to assume that I am not playing by the rules and therefore think I am not making then track ammo

Unless I specifically tell you I am playing a homebrew and I point out what I am houseruling then it is your job as a player to assume we are playing by the default.

You're one of those "players...those miserable pests under my feet" GMs, eh?

This is one of the things I hate most about what they did with the gunslinger class. One of the primary controls on power comes from ammo costs...seriously?

end derail...


ciretose wrote:

But my point is that they don't.

The monk with a 16 wisdom at 4th level will have the equivalent of chain mail at no cost, while still getting the full benefit of any enhancement bonuses that may come their way. Only it is also touch AC and has no armor check penalties or max dexterity.

Bracers give them enhancements to armor at the same cost as it would be to actually enhance armor.

Part of the cost actually comes from ability scores. Money is a river. Unless your game consists of having a set time period until the end of the world, there will be opportunities to make money, even if you have to go out of your way to do so. However, dropping the extra 4 points to go from a +2 Wisdom to a +3 Wisdom is a bit more permanent. A 20th level character can lose all their gear and then start over. They will never get back those 4 points for that +1. Is it worth it? Maybe, but monks don't have a choice.

It's damn hard to be an effective melee when you basically are required to make a mental stat your key stat to just to try and hope and survive an orc's greataxe. Not only do you have lower HP but you have lower AC than other martials.

The wizard getting AC isn't a contest. He's not supposed to have AC comparable to a warrior class. His AC is gravy. More is nice, but not necessarily critical. The wizard isn't supposed to be punching angry orcs wielding axes. The wizard is supposed to be avoiding that sort of thing.

The 1st level ranger with with a 14 Dex and Chainmail (175 gp - 150 gp = 25 gp) gets to prance about with an 18 AC, reach weapon, dealing like 1d10+6 damage with a x3 critical multiplier. The monk needs a PAIR OF 18s to match the AC that the ranger has gotten effectively for free (note I say effectively for free because the ranger had the money to purchase the armor due to his class, whereas the monk had 35 gp to his name). Monk just lost, and lost HARD.

The monk with a pair of 14s (more reasonable with a standard ability array) would only have an AC of 14. Awful. Simply awful.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.

Defensive characters without teeth are called wallflowers. They're pretty to look at, but then people just walk around you. :P

EDIT: That being said, feel free to link me. If that monk actually has teeth, then I must give the guy a pat on the back. Then again, archtypes and all just mean one variation of monk doesn't suck. I actually said that before. Zen Archers (before Paizo lost their minds) were good "monks", and Qi Gong monks (aka spellcasters) aren't bad. :)

This is the thread I meant.

Having said that, if you're looking for a system in which all archetypes are equal utility, I'm sure at least one designer has said that's not one of their design goals. It came up in the separatist cleric thread a while back.

It may not be that they've "lost their minds" - they may be trying to design a game different from the one you think they should design. I think it's important to recognize ones assumptions. It can easy to forget that they're not generally as obvious as we like to think.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.
Sheesh, don't you know that bringing up actual builds or play experiences to an armchair theorycraft nerdrage brawl is considered bad taste?

I've read some of your posts in the 4E forum. Are you really here to give me etiquette lessons? ;p


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.

Defensive is fine, but to risk paraphrasing General Hague, you don't win battles by being purely defensive, you win them by hitting the enemy. Crane Style has a nice riposte at the top of the tree, but with the monk's low hit/moderate damage or adequate hit/light damage issue, is it going to matter?

ciretose wrote:
Sometimes I don't want to waste the time typing out a response to something that I think is completely asinine, but at the same time I want to make it clear that I think it is painfully wrong so that I don't get accused later of ignoring someone.

The problem here is that by doing that you presented an opinion with nothing to back it up, and that makes it look as if the reason you didn't justify it is because you couldn't.

I sometimes make strong statements like that, it's true, but sometimes I do so in order to stimulate debate - a sort of devil's advocate stance. I know that it's debatable if the rogue or monk is weaker, but the other combat classes? Your response wasn't contributing even that much.

Andoran

Dabbler wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.

Defensive is fine, but to risk paraphrasing General Hague, you don't win battles by being purely defensive, you win them by hitting the enemy. Crane Style has a nice riposte at the top of the tree, but with the monk's low hit/moderate damage or adequate hit/light damage issue, is it going to matter?

ciretose wrote:
Sometimes I don't want to waste the time typing out a response to something that I think is completely asinine, but at the same time I want to make it clear that I think it is painfully wrong so that I don't get accused later of ignoring someone.

The problem here is that by doing that you presented an opinion with nothing to back it up, and that makes it look as if the reason you didn't justify it is because you couldn't, and had resorted almost to name-calling to cover the fact.

I sometimes make strong statements like that, it's true, but sometimes I do so in order to stimulate debate - a sort of devil's advocate stance. Your response wasn't contributing even that much.

No, I replied to someone else with a detailed answer.

When you say something as ridiculous as "The monk is the 6th best defensive class" I am going to assume you either are trolling or haven't invested much time in the question.

I'm not going to invest the wall of text required to refute a statement I find absurd in the same way I'm not going to try and summarize "On the Origin of Species" every time someone refutes evolution.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Have those who think monks are weak read the "crane wing style PFS playtest" thread? That guy seems to describe a pretty effective defensive character.
Defensive is fine, but to risk paraphrasing General Hague, you don't win battles by being purely defensive, you win them by hitting the enemy. Crane Style has a nice riposte at the top of the tree, but with the monk's low hit/moderate damage or adequate hit/light damage issue, is it going to matter?.

Surely that's a matter of preference though? I happen to like playing big, high defense fighters who soak up damage and don't do much of it. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of ways to play a fighter "better" but I'm happy so is there a reason not to give me that option?

I realize your objection to the monk hasn't been "they're too defensive" but that seems to be the counter here, and I don't think that's valid. If one class provides defensive options (via this crane style thing) then the charge that "defensive is a bad idea" isn't terribly good. Some people like playing defensively.

That doesn't address your other arguments, of course (when someone wants to play Bruce lee and finds themselves being bad at what they should be good at).


Steve Geddes wrote:


Having said that, if you're looking for a system in which all archetypes are equal utility, I'm sure at least one designer has said that's not one of their design goals. It came up in the separatist cleric thread a while back.

Nah, I mean like what I said with my friend Bob Loblaw a while back. If archtype X does not suck, that does not mean the class the archtype is based off of sucks, and vice versa.

I cannot make the statement that Ranger Archtype X sucks, and thus Rangers suck, any more than I can make the argument that Ranger Archtype X doesn't suck, and therefore Rangers don't suck. See what I mean?

That's basically what we have here. Monks in general suck. Some specific monk archtypes do not suck. Specific monk archtypes not sucking does not make monks in general not suck. Those archtypes just replaced lots of suck with no suck. For example, the Zen Archer deals exceptionally good damage, reduces multi-ability dependency, removes their mobility problems, and reduces the need to have to survive in melee combat, and practically ignores the fact their BAB isn't very good on a non-caster. All in all, net gain for the monk.

Qi Gong monk is basically a monk that casts spells to cover up many of his worse flaws. Net gain for the monk.

The normal monk? Still sucks. :P

Quote:
It may not be that they've "lost their minds" - they may be trying to design a game different from the one you think they should design. I think it's important to recognize ones assumptions. It can easy to forget that they're not generally as obvious as we like to think.

Nah, lost their minds was pretty accurate. They recently stated that the Zen Archer simply doesn't work due to a really stupid clarification on Flurry of Blows, which also prevents Monks from using Flurry of Blows while unarmed. Yep, yep, crazy. Lost their minds. I stand by that statement. If their design is breaking rules that work to intentionally make them not work, well then I will have lost what faith I had left.


Bold declarative statements in a persuasive argument presented without evidence are ridiculous... wait.... nooooooooooo

I'm reasonably being comfortable with being viewed as ridiculous.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Because that +1 to armor is better than the bonus from Wisdom?

Actually, yeah. Wizard can hit +12 AC from armor/shield, complete with sexy benefits like Fortification (woo 75% chance to dodge crit/SA) and have cute benefits like arrow deflection to boot. Incidentally, the +12 AC from +5 armor/+5 mithral buckler is cheaper than +8 bracers of armor, and they can craft them themselves if desired for 1/2 price.

At what level? You've got a wizard with your cheese shield armor combo maxed out at 20th.

Depends. The cost of a +2 silk armor is around 4,000 gp plus some change. The cost of a +2 mithral buckler is around 5,000 gp plus some change. That's 9,000 gp all together for +6 AC (+3 armor, +3 shield). That's maybe 5th level at the absolute earliest. Costs the wizard/commoner 0 AP (ability points).

The monk to get the armor bonus needs 9,000 gp for a +3 armor bonus alone (bracers of armor). No shield bonus for the monk. Needs at least a 16 Wisdom to make up the difference. Pretty costly indeed.

Quote:
So your point is what, exactly? Please pick a level for your argument, as you claiming the "lots of cash" argument while decking yourself out in maxed armor and shield is just silly.

Why should I pick a level? I actually have noted, repeatedly, that monks have the advantage on armor class (little else) at very high levels due to the expected wealth by level, and the idea that you will be getting magic items beyond what you can buy in stores (you can't buy bracers of armor beyond +4 by the way, or stat boosters beyond +4, without the dice gods favoring you, if we're talking the core rules).

I just don't think that "one day in the distant future when I have crap-tons of money and can stack every benefit under the sun, including an armor bonus for a whopping 64,000 gp (which is more expensive than celestial full plate by more than double) I will have AC that is actually very awesome" is a very good argument for the monk's...

And again, harder to pin down than a mosquito in a hurricane.

You picked level 6, I broke down level 6. You picked a high level, I showed that I can get to your AC with armor bonuses before I add in any of my armor bonuses I can get from bracers, or any other source of armor bonus other than armor.

Unless 6th is "a very high level" I don't follow your point. A point, I would add, you made at a level you selected.

Any other goalposts you want me to chase around? I do enjoy it.

101 to 150 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why do monks need to be as good at fighting as other melee classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.